House passes domestic violence protections

O'Malley gun bills don't address the problem, Simmons says

ANNAPOLIS — A bill requiring the accused to surrender their guns when final protective orders are granted in domestic violence cases and another allowing a judge to order the surrender of guns when temporary orders are granted passed the House of Delegates on Tuesday, after days of emotional debate.

But the gun bills — touted by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) as the top public safety initiative in his 2009 legislative agenda — only serve to reinforce what judges are already doing, Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons said Thursday.

"In all of your major urban jurisdictions, judges routinely are requiring the surrender of all firearms," said Simmons (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville. "So I doubt if changing the language from may' to shall' will have a major impact."

The House also passed a bill sponsored by Del. Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Dist. 15) of Rockville that would allow a District Court commissioner "to use all reasonable and necessary force" to return a child to a parent with custody rights when an interim or temporary protective order is issued.

Delegates rejected a bill sponsored by Del. Tony McConkey (R-Dist. 33A) of Severna Park under which individuals granted a protective order would meet the legal standard of having "good and substantial reason" to be issued a permit to wear, carry or transport a handgun.

During two hours of debate Thursday, Republican delegates offered several amendments to the O'Malley gun bills. The amendments sought to give receipts to people who have their guns confiscated; to give people the option of having confiscated weapons stored by law enforcement, by a gun dealer or at another secure facility licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and to establish a uniform process for the timely return of confiscated guns at the expiration of a protective order.

The amendments were overwhelmingly rejected in votes that were largely along party lines.

An amendment offered by Del. Steven J. DeBoy Sr. (D-Dist. 12A) of Arbutus, a 20-year veteran of the Baltimore County Police Department, to exempt police officers from having their firearms confiscated also was rejected.

"It's just strengthening what judges are doing," Hansen said, adding that the legislation "is just one step forward to say you do have judicial authority."

But more is needed to get to the root of the problem, said Simmons, who voted for both O'Malley bills.

"The real issue is why do people file for these protective orders and not follow through?" he said.

Simmons said he would like to see domestic violence cases get special attention in court in the same manner as drug cases, something he acknowledged would be expensive.

If court dockets were divided into cases involving serious bodily harm and cases involving nonlethal conduct, courts "could devote more time, effort, supervision and more protection, frankly, to those petitioners," he said.

"I want to look at what would be helpful as opposed to what would be legislatively attractive," Simmons said.

Simmons's comments came after two days of emotional debate and legislative maneuvering over a bill that he sponsored that would allow a judge to expunge the records of subjects of dismissed or denied protective orders.

A cross-file of the bill is being sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Norman R. Stone Jr. (D-Dist. 6) of Dundalk and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach.

Temporary protective orders are a civil matter that can be granted without hearing from both sides. Their appearance on someone's record can lead to difficulties throughout life, including in securing a job or housing, Simmons said.

Last week's debate over the bill crossed party, gender and racial lines in the 141-member House.

Del. Cheryl Glenn pleaded with colleagues to vote against the bill, saying that she had been the victim of an abusive husband. Victims often stay in such relationships rather than risking their children's safety, she said.

"You make that choice. Is it worth it for you to see your children dead, or suck it up to the point where you're not beat again, to the point where you aren't recognized?" said Glenn (D-Dist. 45) of Baltimore.

The House rejected the bill on a 69-64 vote, but it was resurrected on March 11 after the House voted 76-63 to recommit it to the Judiciary Committee.